Specific toxic behaviours

Sort:
flyfishsullivan

Teaming with your op is part ffa Everything Indipendenza said makes sence. I'm only 2050 and people do the same things, zombie king to avoid checkmate etc.

Magic_sofa

"Teaming is part of FFA"

I understand that people have fallen into acceptance that the best way to play FFA is to cooperate with your opposite player in the early game. I just don't accept that on multiple levels.

First of all, it is a Free For All game. It is even stated in the rules that "pre-determined" cooperation is not allowed, and yet here we have a meta that has evolved toward just that. Pre-determined cooperation with your opposite. Players just don't need to chat about it because it is considered "basic knowledge". Essentially, they did discuss it, just not during the game. Isn't that effectively the same as saying "let's team up" at the beginning of the game? Why does the method and timing of communicating a plan, change the rules governing that plan?

It is a bit silly to be asked "Do you really want your FFA game to be everyone for themselves?!" Well yeah, I clicked on FFA didn't I?

I realize that temporary teaming happens in pretty much all (non-chess) FFA games, and I have no issue with it, it is part of the fun and I think the decision to prevent players from chatting about alliances is actually against the spirit of true FFA. But of course you would have even more whiney players getting mad that another player lied to them, so I get that they probably were trying to just reduce the amount of enraged arguments flying around. I am also aware of Diplomacy mode but I haven't had much luck finding those games and I'm not particularly interested in playing unrated games (at least I thought Diplomacy was unrated?)

Another issue with this whole idea is that it can easily become a self fulfilling prophecy. As soon as word gets out that this is the best way to play, people just start doing it, without really testing it or knowing why it is (supposedly) the best way. Then, if you find yourself flanked by two cooperating players and opposed by one non-cooperating player, you might be totally screwed (all 3 might attack you) and this experience will push you to want to cooperate with your opposite only to mitigate the team action happening against you. See the problem here? If those players weren't teaming, then you would not be ushered into the opp-teaming camp.
If there's a solid study showing that opp-teaming is advantageous I'd love to see it... but WAIT, advantageous to whom? If all four players are using this strategy, then who gets the advantage? If everyone gets the same advantage then there is no advantage. So what is the point?

In the above example, how would it play out if two flanked players teamed up instead? Suddenly you are better off teaming up with your other flank. It seems like the real reason people don't consider that is because they have been told it's always better to team with your opp, because attacking a flank is positionally easier especially in early game. But there are possibilities for attacking your opp or teaming with your flank. Perhaps it happens less often, I could accept that. But if it never happens because players have accepted the current meta, then the issue is really that people are just falling into line instead of thinking independently and playing a true FFA.

But the complaints here are not all about teaming or lack of teaming... they are also about players making bad or spiteful moves. It's just unrealistic to expect all the other players in an FFA game to operate with this perfect vision that you have of the game. It's like you want all players to do the "right" moves, never making a mistake or poor decision, unless of course you are about to win and then I guess wrong moves are okay?

Again, if everyone teamed with their opposite and played all the "right" moves, all you have is a team game until someone gets eliminated. And a stale one at that, if people are afraid to backstab and manipulate when it goes against the current meta.

I just wish we were allowed to chat freely in-game to mitigate this. At least there would be some chance for alternative alliances, perhaps they are less optimal but how will players find out if they are always railroaded into something else?

Indipendenza

Magic, I understand your point, BUT:

- it's the configuration of the board, and you can do nothing with it,

- your views would've been extremely valid and interesting, IF your experience was not 330 games and your rating 1975.

As of today strictly nobody could get even 2350-2400 if he considered that to attack/weaken/kill/fail to save the opp in the 1st stage FFA is not excluded. But good luck, please prove your point by getting to 2400 first.

(It is true though to some extent that the opp. cooperation is PARTLY due to the fact that it's common ideology; BUT the configuration of the board would've imposed it anyway).

Indipendenza

"alternative alliances" : if you look into any normal 2600+ game, 2nd stage, you would see that the alliances are extremely unstable and change all the time through, simply because the players try to preserve the balance. But as for the 1st stage, it's necessarily 2 vs. 2, everything else minimises everybody's chances to win. Even to be NEUTRAL whereas the 2 neighbours cooperate is a losing scenario (in average of course! Sometimes to wait for them to finish the opp can work, but usually that means that you have just 5-12 pts in the beginning of the 2nd stage whereas they have 30-35 each, so you begin the 2nd stage with a handicap, even if with more material of course, so your chances are not 33%).

flyfishsullivan

I'd like ffa to be ffa to but it's not.

ChessMasterGS
flyfishsullivan wrote:

I'd like ffa to be ffa to but it's not.

Cooperation has been in existence for rapid and blitz since months after the beta (although early posts mostly called it cheating) but it was only 2-3 years ago that bullet players started to learn how to calculate quickly enough to replicate the strategy in non increment games… I would suggest trying 15 sec if you want no cooperation at all and only raw FFA but it’s definitely not for everyone given the nature of the time control

flyfishsullivan
ChessMasterGS wrote:
flyfishsullivan wrote:

I'd like ffa to be ffa to but it's not.

Cooperation has been in existence for rapid and blitz since months after the beta (although early posts mostly called it cheating) but it was only 2-3 years ago that bullet players started to learn how to calculate quickly enough to replicate the strategy in non increment games… I would suggest trying 15 sec if you want no cooperation at all and only raw FFA but it’s definitely not for everyone given the nature of the time control

idk.. i've tried 15 sec but it's just whoever premoves the most and I've had ops team in 15 sec too

ChessMasterGS

Some people are just extreme 🙃

noahfavelo
flyfishsullivan wrote:

I'd like ffa to be ffa to but it's not.

ffa means Free For All which means that all players can make whatever decisions they want to (even bad decisions) to try and increase their final position in the standings. this includes any type of teaming, either with the opp or with the sides whenever the player sees fit, and these agreements last for as long as the player sees fit, the whole "no arranging teaming" is fine, but its real purpose is not clearly defined, why is it not defined? because if you fully extrapolate the idea of "no teaming" you get to a place where making any move that could be mutually beneficial to you and another player can be reported, as so the rules on teaming are intentionally left amorphous. all in all, you see that the entire idea of FREE for all, is that players are free to make whatever decisions they want to, including teaming, even if they re making a mistake, basically doing "whatever it takes" to make themselves win.

Indipendenza

YES.

But!

It can be done only for some strategic advantage. Precisely like you wrote: in order to increase their potential final points/position/chances.

If something is done emotionally, just in order to punish someone for whatever reason, i.e. with no game advantage, it is toxic. That's what my post was about.

In any game we must play to maximise our chances to win. Not to have any extra-game advantage (like to see someone we don't like being 4th for instance).

Also, it's a matter of fact that to attack in front during the 1st stage (with some still existing exceptions, but these are very few, cf. https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/to-betray-too-early-means-3rd-place-in-95-of-cases) significantly decreases your chances to win eventually. YES nothing in the FFA rules prevents you from that, OF COURSE. But it is against the spirit of the game as it reduces your chances. Etc.

Rafael0310

Right

flyfishsullivan

I will admit that that one time was like week ago but was my first encounter of that out of 350+ games

flyfishsullivan
reachvidur wrote:
flyfishsullivan wrote:

I will admit that that one time was like week ago but was my first encounter of that out of 350+ games

as i said it is probably a 1 in a million encounter

I agree, just saying

Indipendenza

Again, about similar matters:

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/resign-button-should-be-deleted

YES many resigns are just harmful, and it's often TOXIC. But I'm afraid nothing can be done about it. If you remove it, ppl will disconnect or lose by flagging, hence time waste...

Indipendenza

A fresh example (of course I shall not post the link to the game). A 2650 player (supposedly aware of basic 4p chess and etiquette) in the end of the game, just 1 move from a certain mate (whereas only 2 of us remain and I am necessarily winning) still has almost 6 min. And... then waits for more than 5 min., probably hoping that I would lose patience and disconnect or my connection would fail. Then 5 seconds before flagging finally plays his move, probably hoping that I would be absent from my computer and would fail to play (and he would win eventually).

Such a childish, immature and rude behaviour is absolutely toxic and no 2500+ player should ever behave like that. Total lack of dignity and self-esteem. You lose, you lose, happens. You resign and you move to another game, rather than wasting 6 min. of someone's life.

thenomalnoob
Indipendenza đã viết:

Some players clearly lack of fair-play spirit, have no sportmanship.

For instance:

- betraying the opp in the 1st stage FFA for any reason (finishing then 3rd in most cases, but they don't care),

- targeting some particular player, specifically the opp', simply because he is much higher rated, in order to make him finish 4th on purpose and to have the Schadenfreude to see him losing 30, 40 points,

- resigning on purpose just before someone eats your Q and gets 9 pts that he deserved,

- resigning on purpose just before the certain mate, in order to create thus a zombie king and to prevent the winning player from having 20 points that he deserved and quite often from winning the game he was clearly winning,

- eating as much pieces of someone as possible with no strategic advantage (once someone realises he won't win), just in order to make him lose (by revenge),

- failing to take an obvious mate in 1, making the opp to lose his Q, on purpose,

- throwing on purpose in the 2nd stage FFA to some other player, playing for 2nd and wanting another specific player to be 3rd (kingmaking),

- resigning on purpose in order to avoid for the CLEARLY winning player to win, seeing that he needs just 1 or 2 points to win (another case of kingmaking: one makes on purpose some player win rather than some other who clearly deserved the victory taking into account the game and his moves, etc.).

I haven't played a lot of games where all the players were above 2500-2600, so cannot say, but in the 2200-2500 area such behaviours are unfortunately common. I think it's very damageable for our nice hobby.

I'm currently 2,4 k elo to play that. I need to deal with them, but I have to accept. It's life